Back before cable TV, when there were only 3 television networks, no streaming, no YouTube, etc, shows would easily get 10-20x the audience sizes they do today. But, compared to the stuff produced today, those shows mostly had cheap sets and few locations.
With lower costs and way more viewers, were those old networks literally swimming in money? Or was something majorly different?
Did advertisers pay substantially less? Did actors get paid more? How did the economics work?
In: 5
Two things, cost of production and cost of distribution.
1 – Modern equipment and software to produce a show are a fraction of the cost of running a TV studio 30 years ago. High quality cameras, editing equipment, and special effects cost very, very little in proportion.
Of course, some shows today have better production quality than movies did in times past and cost a fortune (Game of Thrones, The Crown, etc), but there are still many great shows made for not-much-money, certainly less money than if filmed as regular TV in the 80’s.
2 – TV shows of old had to be broadcast on a TV channel. Air-time was a scarce and a terribly expensive thing to have. Powerful transmitters across the country and only a very few channels available to broadcast on and **only one show could be on a single channel at the same time**. Supply and demand.
Much of TV today is carried on cable or even streaming. The cost to distribute is very, very low. There is no scarcity equivalent to the idea that through the 80’s most people had well under a dozen channels available.
I can go to HULU or Netflix and watch any of hundreds of streaming shows today, This means giant shows can make big money, but even small, niche shows with smaller audiences can still make money if they can moderate their production costs.
Latest Answers